2026:JHHC:5304 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1134 of 2026 ------ Loknath Yadav, son of Late Mulak Yadav, resident of Village Hathdih, P.O. Jhabar, P.S. Balumath, District Palamau. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Director, Land and Survey Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. 5. Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA ------ 02/ 19.02.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays that the past service of the petitioner i.e. the service which was rendered before regularization, be counted for the purpose for his post retiral benefits. 3. The facts are admitted in this case. 4. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as a Surveyor in the Settlement Office Hazaribagh, on 13.12.2008. After serving for fifteen years, the petitioner was regularized vide order as contained in Memo No.72-I, dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). He ultimately superannuated 2026:JHHC:5304 2 on 28.02.2025. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner has not served for more than ten years after being regularized, the petitioner is deprived of the pensionary benefits. 6. When the petitioner has worked continuously from 2008, before his regularization on 07.08.2023, I find no reason as to why not the aforesaid period be counted only for the purpose of his retiral benefits. 7. This Court in a similar writ petition being W.P.(S) No.769 of 2026 (Raju Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), has passed order to consider the past service only for the purpose of considering the pensionary benefits. 8. Be it noted that if the past service is calculated, the qualifying ten years’ of service for the purpose of pension, has been satisfied by the petitioner. 9. Thus, considering the orders passed by this Court earlier, I direct the respondents to consider the past service of the petitioner, only for the purpose of post retiral benefits and not for any other purpose. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 19th February, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 24.02.2026